Conclusion: Duron 1300 - The Better Choice Compared To Celeron 1300
This test clearly shows that, at the same clock speed, the more expensive Intel Celeron does not measure up to the AMD Duron. The reasons for this are quite obvious: for one thing, the Celeron's Socket 370 platform runs on an outmoded memory clock speed of 100 MHz! In this case, even the latest Tualatin core with its 256 kB L2-Cache would not be able to compete. In contrast, AMD is built on a 133 MHz memory clock that even works in DDR mode, depending on the chipset. However, both competitors are specified to work with a Front Side Bus of 100 MHz. For those that want to assemble a low-priced PC system, the AMD Duron 1300 is the better choice when compared to the Intel Celeron 1300. In reality, the price difference for typical PC systems of this performance class is approximately $85. Low-cost PCs with the Duron cost about $425, while similarly configured systems with the Celeron start at $510.
An interesting result turned up in our overclocking test: despite the fact that we bridged the L1 contact, the multiplier of the AMD CPU could not be released. So it remains to be seen whether this has to do with a special hand-picked CPU sample, or whether AMD has now made it a general rule to lock the multiplier. This presents a new challenge for us.
It appears as if AMD has done some of its homework. In any case, the manufacturer has made sure that the majority of its processors are no longer available at an entirely piddling price. This fact mirrors the average sales price (ASP), which increased significantly in the last quarter: it was $61 in the summer, and is now at $90. In addition, the number of Duron processors sold last year (at a low ASP) comprised less than 50%. In many of the previous articles, we've recommended keeping in mind the saying, "you get what you pay for," and apparently this has not fallen on deaf ears.
